Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:57, 24 August 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Firearms This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

the word "cosmetic" is false and biased.

Read this older discussion, if you wish, or jump directly to the newer discussion ("Is inclusion of the word 'cosmetic' in the Criteria section appropriate?") below to participate. Lightbreather (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The features listed in the assault weapons ban were not solely cosmetic. All of them served utilitarian functions which make weapons more dangerous, or better suited to unlawful purposes.

1) Folding and telescopic stocks make weapons better suited to unlawful purposes by making them more concealable. 2) Pistol grips in conjunction with folding or telescopic stocks, or in place of stocks altogether, make it easier to use more concealable weapons either with folding or telescopic stocks, or in place of stocks altogether. 3) Bayonet mounts make weapons more dangerous by increasing their utility as melee weapons. 4) Flash suppressors make weapons better suited to unlawful purposes by making it easier to stay hidden when firing them. 5) Grenade launchers make weapons more dangerous by enabling the accurate use of small explosive devices at long range.

The word "cosmetic" is inaccurate, and worse, biased in this context. It implies that Congress cynically targeted features for show, rather than function. That may be. But Misplaced Pages should not take that editorial position.

Whomever wrote that screed obviously knows very little about firearms.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The best way to resolve this dispute is with a "he said/she said" approach. A sentence should include the reason Congress gave for targeting denominated features. And another sentence should include to gun advocate's argument that features like grenade launchers are purely cosmetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.145.68 (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Cosmetic is the term from the cited reference. Do you have a reference that has a different view? Yaf (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

For once I agree with Yaf. Folks from both "sides" have called it that. North8000 (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that its false and biased but I will agree that it is unnessesary. Simply saying features is enough without the adjective cosmetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.242.165.106 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Yaf and North8000. The reference specifically says "cosmetic". As a point of fact, the basic functionality of a semi-automatic rifle is the same with or without pistol grips, flash hider, etc. They look different, they look "military". That difference is cosmetic. There is no bias in the article continuing to recognize that. Do you have any RS that suggests otherwise? Capitalismojo (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a similar discussion taking place at Talk:Assault weapon#Cosmetic features. — Mudwater 03:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the user who put this section on here was none other than the wicked witch herself. They are cosmetic and prove to have no effect on the firearms "power". And criminals do not exclusively use "assault weapons" because We The People use them as well against criminals. I have them but does that make me a criminal? I'm not shooting little kids or robbing banks so this topic is invalid and unprofessional by a liberal commie who just want to rule the world with his/her own army of mongols against a disarmed populace.-Boba fett 32 (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Also does it make soldiers criminal in using these types of weapons? It may vary depending on the mission but why should we let soldiers armed with grenade launchers and drones and nuclear bombs? Why do they need M-16 rifles if it's just being used for unlawful purposes? Reality check, it's not a bill of needs it's a Bill Of Rights. Our founding fathers wanted citizens to have arms that are nearly and evenly matched with the standing military and that's a fact.-Boba fett 32 (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"Cosmetic" is not false and biased. It is factually accurate.

The first line in the rebuttal is assuming that the utilitarian functions of the described items are for illicit purposes. This is patently incorrect.

"1) Folding and telescopic stocks make weapons better suited to unlawful purposes by making them more concealable."

Source?

Incorrect. The purpose is to allow adjustments to comfortably fit the user as most stocks are one fixed size. Is every shooter the same build? No. If the sole purpose of these type of stocks was "making them more concealable", then why do they make telescopic stocks for pistols? They at least double the size of a pistol that had one. These types of stocks are commonplace among sport/competition shooters for the same reason. The previous argument doesn't even make sense.

"2) Pistol grips in conjunction with folding or telescopic stocks, or in place of stocks altogether, make it easier to use more concealable weapons either with folding or telescopic stocks, or in place of stocks altogether."

Source?

Again, couldn't be farther from the truth. The purpose of the pistol grip is differing ergonomics. A pistol grip in conjunction with a fold/telescopic stock does not make it more concealable. It makes the firearm larger as the pistol grip extrudes from the lower of the rifle (bigger, less concealable), whereas normal (non-telescopic/folding stocks) are more in parallel with the body of the rifle, and smaller.

"3) Bayonet mounts make weapons more dangerous by increasing their utility as melee weapons."

Source?

A bayonet mount does not increase its utility as a melee weapon. A bayonet does, but a mount does not. Have you ever heard of a melee spree from a mounted bayonet on an AR-15 anyways?

"4) Flash suppressors make weapons better suited to unlawful purposes by making it easier to stay hidden when firing them."

Source?

Apparently, everything on a rifle is made for unlawful purposes. If such was the case, military and police must have a lot of unlawful activities going on as they utilize a lot of these. Is a flash suppressor necessary? No. Is a car that can go over 100mph? No. Luxury item, hardly something to actually worry about. If you have ever fired a rifle with a flash suppressor, you would know that it does not eradicate a flash. Also, most shootings are not a sniper in the woods. Someone who is skilled enough to shoot that far that a flash suppressor would be effective, the flash would not be visible anyways.

The purpose of a flash suppressor is to protect and preserve the shooter's vision. Essentially it is a safety device and proponents of the legislation were not concerned with safety. The muzzle device used on the M16A2 is described as a compensator by the US Military, but because it cosmetically resembled what people who know nothing about firearms took to be a flash suppressor...that's what they called it. It was all about the looks or cosmetics for those people.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"5) Grenade launchers make weapons more dangerous by enabling the accurate use of small explosive devices at long range."

True.

However, this is biased. These are not available to the civilian populace to begin with, thus redundant to put in the bill in the first place. This is merely used to help distract a reader by creating fear in a non-existent problem.

It is not editorial, and it is in fact, true. The fact that they targeted these specific features, proves its aim at cosmetics. If you want to get really picky, ergonomics would be a better word to use, over cosmetics.

Lostincynicism (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of dispute headers on the article page.

The two dispute headers on the article page have been in place for a significant period of time in relation to the below above listed complaint. This complaint has been discussed at length in this talk page. The general public sees the dispute headers on the article and calls into question the veracity of the information provided in the article because of those headers. This talk page has shown the substantive issue of whether the term "cosmetic" has been resolved. Whether or not the term is biased, the use of the term is indeed one of historical fact and documented use. The term "cosmetic" was not one created by wiki users or by any statistically insignificant minority, but the majority of all parties involved. Therefore it does a disservice to the public at large to leave the dispute headers in place on the article page, as there is indeed no need to keep them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.4.205 (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Is inclusion of the word "cosmetic" in the Criteria section appropriate?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the "Criteria of an assault weapon" section contain the words "cosmetic"? Lightbreather (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey - For threaded discussion, see below

• Oppose, the word "cosmetic" is inappropriate in the Criteria section. Lightbreather (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Misplaced Pages is built on sourced and cited material. "Appropriate" is a first person value judgement, not supported by the sources cited. Anastrophe (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. It is exactly what it is. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. If both sides of the debate say it's cosmetic, there's no reason we shouldn't. We can't make things up that contradict our sources. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support There are multiple RS describing it as cosmetic. We should stick with the reliable sources. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral, but There must be a better word to use that is still grammatically correct. Granted, the use of the word cosmetic IMO does connote the 'superficial' nature of the design elements. The article should be devoting space to explaining the problem with the legislation, there is ample press covereage to cite in this respect. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Cosmetic is the term used in the sources. GregJackP Boomer! 14:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Cosmetic is very commonly used in reliable sources, by both sides, to describe the criteria. It is the terminology that is used. WP should not intentionally try to ignore reliable sources.Miguel Escopeta (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. If cosmetic is used in multiple reliable sources, then we go with reliable sources. Is this bordering on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? EricSerge (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I was asked here by Lightbreather, who was pleading for me to help him. I am afraid that I cannot do that. As far as I can tell, the word "Cosmetic" seems to be used by all parties involved. I don't understand why we should NOT use it. Failure to use the term would be to abandon the term of choice by experts on all sides. As EricSerge says above, this may be a case of WP:LISTEN--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Sue, for your quick response. My request on your page was imprecise. I will reply in more detail there. (FYI, though I guess it doesn't matter much here, I'm a "her," not a "him.") Lightbreather (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Both sides use the term,and its in sources. It is also accurate and helps clarify an area ("assault weapons" vs. assault rifles) where confusion has been deliberately cultivated. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• support widely used. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'm not American, a supporter of guns or a previous contibutor to this topic and have been invited here by the person who started the RFC. However, I'm afraid that I have to agree with everyone else here that the word appears to have been used by sources on both sides who discuss the issue and therefore should stay in. AndrewRT(Talk) 15:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Whether the features are cosmetic or functional is part of the debate. To give just one example, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence says that assault weapons are "designed with military features to allow rapid and accurate spray firing." Similarly, many other pro-gun-control sources claim that assault weapons are "military style" firearms that, because of their features, are inherently more dangerous than "regular" firearms. So, the basic premise of those who want to ban or limit assault weapons is that the features that make them assault weapons are functional, and therefore not cosmetic. Otherwise, why would the pro-gun-control groups think they were objecting to assault weapons -- because of esthetic preferences? So it's just not true that pro-gun-control and pro-gun-rights groups agree that the features are cosmetic, and to say so in the article introduces a fair amount of bias. The article should present both sides of the controversy in an even-handed manner. "P.S." Some pro-gun-control groups said that after the federal ban passed, some manufacturers produced guns that were legal under the ban but that had only cosmetic differences from guns that were illegal under the ban. But, that's not the same thing as saying that the features that define assault weapons are cosmetic. — Mudwater 17:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Another user says the limited discussion from earlier in 2013 (top of this talk), plus two citations in the article, are sufficient to prove that the word "cosmetic" is appropriate in the "Criteria of an assault weapon" section of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban page. I agree the word may be appropriate to use in other sections of the page, but not the Criteria section. The word "cosmetic" appeared nowhere in the AWB, and there is not a consensus among concerned parties about the essential qualities of these features. In 2004, upon expiration of the AWB, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action responded by calling the features "cosmetic," but the NRA-ILA is hardly a neutral party in the discussion. At the same time, the Violence Policy Center issued a press release that said, in part, "Soon after its passage in 1994, the gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing 'post-ban' assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts." Again, the VPC is not a neutral party, and, at any rate, its statement does not say that the banned features were cosmetic. Lightbreather (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that manufacturers were able to build guns *in compliance with the law* by altering cosmetic features of the guns, means that cosmetic features were what were banned. Both pro-gun-rights and pro-gun-control organizations acknowledged that the ban was on cosmetic features, not functional features. If that isn't consensus on the distinction, I don't know what is. Anastrophe (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

See my post on 11 August 2013 at 19:38 (UTC). Lightbreather (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources refer to "cosmetic". This discussion seems to be beating a dead horse. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, this is not beating a dead horse. Pushing to restore the word "cosmetic" to the Criteria section of the AWB talk was jumping the gun. Let's look at your sources, one at a time. #1 The Salon.com article by Alex Seitz-Wald titled "Don't mourn the assault weapon's ban impending demise." The word "cosmetic" appears twice on that article page. First, in the subtitle, which Seitz-Wald very likely did not write, and in any case was poor editing, as "cosmetic" there modifies "assault weapons ban" in the title. Our Misplaced Pages article does not say that the ban was cosmetic. "Cosmetic" appears next (and last) in the sixth paragraph, where Alex Seitz-Wald says he "largely" agrees with the NRA. However "largely" is not the same as "completely." Seitz-Wald also quotes Chris Koper's 2004 report to the U.S. Department of Justice. The word "cosmetic" appears one time in that 114-page document: in the first paragraph of section 2.4.2. "Although the law bans 'copies or duplicates' of the named gun makes and models, federal authorities have emphasized exact copies. Relatively cosmetic changes, such as removing a flash hider or bayonet mount, are sufficient to transform a banned weapon into a legal substitute, and a number of manufacturers now produce modified, legal versions of some of the banned guns..." No English teacher or legal analyst would say that Koper meant that flash hiders or bayonet mounts are cosmetic features, but simply that removing them from the banned weapons was sufficient to make them legal. Legal and scholarly language is very precise. To say that Koper meant anything more than exactly what he said in that statement is a leap by the reader. Therefore, this citation does not prove that the features listed in the AWB were cosmetic features. Lightbreather (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is a nonsensical reading. Koper states: "Relatively cosmetic changes, such as removing a flash hider or bayonet mount, are sufficient to transform a banned weapon into a legal substitute,". In what sense other than the features being cosmetic, can you read his statement as *not* supportive that the features removed are cosmetic? If removing a cosmetic feature renders the weapon compliant with the law, then it means that the law banned cosmetic features, not functional features. If Koper had meant to suggest that *non* cosmetic - functional - changes rendered guns legal, he would have said so. Please, provide an english language example, framed the same as Kopel's, that contradicts this unstrained reading. Anastrophe (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe: First, does your statement, "I'm sorry, but this is a nonsensical reading," follow the community "Dispute resolution" guidelines? Second, Koper's statement - "Relatively cosmetic changes, such as removing a flash hider or bayonet mount, ..." - does not mean that flash hiders or bayonet mounts are cosmetic features, but that removing them is a relatively cosmetic change. From Merriam-Webster online: Relatively adverb - :to a relative degree or extent : somewhat. As I wrote earlier, legal and scholarly language is precise. If Koper had meant that flash hiders and bayonet mounts were only cosmetic features, he could have written: "The removal of cosmetic features, such as flash hiders or bayonet mounts, ..." Furthermore, if Koper had meant that removing flash hiders or bayonet mounts were completely cosmetic changes, he could have written that, too, instead of writing "relatively cosmetic changes". And at any rate, neither of these statements would have supported your reading that all or most assault weapons features are cosmetic. Lightbreather (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 'nonsensical reading' is within guidelines, thanks for asking. Are you aware of the policies regarding vandalizing an Editor's User page, as you did last night? Now to the substance: once again, you are arguing that it is the unqualified use of the term 'cosmetic' that you find inappropriate, not the use of the term 'cosmetic' full stop. I would strongly encourage you to start an Rfc specific to the concerns you have focused exclusively upon in this discussion. Otherwise, you are making a mockery of the discussion, because the discussion revolves around a question you did not request comment for. You likewise make a mockery of the discussion by overtly ignoring the substantive responses I've already made that address precisely what you just wrote above.Anastrophe (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

My post on your user page was meant to go in the talk section. I apologize. I thought you understood that when you deleted it and wrote "i'm going to assume it was a good faith mistake." As for the "nonsensical reading" remark, I disagree, but I'll leave it at that for now. I also disagree that I should start another RfC at this time, or that I'm making a mockery of the discussion. Also, I'm responding to your responses (and others' responses) as fast as I can. I'm sure I spent at least eight hours on this RfC yesterday - but I do have a family, and I also need to eat and sleep sometimes. I am sorry if I'm not moving fast enough for you. Lightbreather (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

When no apology was voluntarily tendered even after you began posting here today, I felt it was clear that it was no longer good faith. But whatever. "nonsensical reading" does not mean "you are nonsensical" or "you are being nonsensical". Wielding the policy bat that easily throws up red flags for me. I don't see how you can disagree with tendering a new Rfc that actually conforms to the concerns you are expressing here, rather than something quite different. You are arguing that the use of 'cosmetic' is unqualified in the criteria section, not that the word should be removed, as the Rfc queries. You are gathering votes on a question different from the issue you are arguing. However, since the use of 'cosmetic' is qualified in all places it's used in the article, I guess there really isn't much point to an Rfc for that either. We'll sit for a while and see if more votes show up for this question, but since reliable sources trump individual editor's desires for scrubbing information, I don't see much value in that either. User User:Mike Searson has provided sixteen sources describing some or all of the features as cosmetic. The preponderance of sources use the term. Anastrophe (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, you suggest that a reading of two sources that refer to cosmetic changes is not convincing, but you ignore the three other sources Capitalismojo provided. Perhaps it will simplify things if I add to the article the additional three sources that corroborate the plain english understanding of this matter. Anastrophe (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

If you will re-read my reply to Capitalismojo, you will see that I intend to address each citation separately (for clarity). Lightbreather (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Capitalismojo: Continuing to look at your sources, one at a time. #2 The reason.com article by Jacob Sullum titled "What's an Assault Weapon?" The statement Sullum makes is, "The distinguishing characteristics of 'assault weapons' are mainly cosmetic and have little or no functional significance in the context of mass shootings or ordinary gun crimes." Assuming you are claiming that "distinguishing characteristics" is absolutely interchageable with the term "features" (used in the law), "mainly" is not the same as "totally." Also, Sullum's bias is also obvious in his ironic usage of quotation marks around his every reference to assault weapons. This does not support that the features described in the AWB were cosmetic, but that Sullum believes they were. Lightbreather (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That a reliable source believes something or has a bias does not invalidate that source in any manner whatsoever. Misplaced Pages's foundation is reliable sources, not editor's opinions as to what the reliable sources do or do not believe. That said, I would be agreeable to modifying the 'Criteria' section to say "largely cosmetic", rather than 'cosmetic' full stop. Worth noting that there's nothing ironic about using quotation marks around the politically created word "assault weapon", which definition of same cannot be nailed down in any empirical manner - which rather speaks to the very problems with the "assault weapons" that are at issue, to wit, that most - if not all - criteria that politicians have used in attempting to define their created term, have nothing to do with function, but rather appearance. Anastrophe (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if a reliable source's bias does not invalidate that source, how editors choose to use biased material matters. From the Verifiabilty page itself: "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." I assert that using the term "cosmetic features" - not once, or twice, but three times - in the Criteria of an assault weapon section of the AWB article gives undue weight to the term. Per WP Balancing aspects, giving undue weight can include quantity of text and prominence of placement. It also upsets the Balance and the Impartial tone of the article. Further, I have pointed out elsewhere in this talk that the sources who use the modifier "cosmetic" do not agree on what exactly it modifies. Therefore, again, I suggest that we remove it as it is currently used in the article. I will compose an alternative and present it ASAP - either later tonight or (more likely) tomorrow. Lightbreather (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This is rapidly becoming WP:IDHT. You called an RfC about the word "cosmetic" in the article. The !vote is currently overwhelmingly supportive of including the word, since it appears in the sources. As a matter of fact, the only editor opposed to its inclusion is you. There is clear consensus to leave it in. I would advise you to WP:DROPTHESTICK and leave it be before this gets out of hand. I'm an uninvolved editor - I don't recall ever having edited this article, and very rarely to almost never editing in this subject area. It's just free advice, take it for what it's worth. GregJackP Boomer! 03:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe: Did you read the Misplaced Pages article on the ironic usage of quotation marks? Did you click through to the main article on scare quotes? The sections on negative use and style guidelines are relevant to a critique of Sullum's article, which uses scare quotes at least a dozen times when referring to assault weapons. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was the law of the land from 1994 to 2004, and the terms therein ("assault weapons" and "semiautomatic assault weapon") were legally defined, regardless of what you or Mr. Sullum think about them. Lightbreather (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I note with interest that you mention the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" in discussing the use of quotation marks. Did you actually mean the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, which is the formal legal name of the act? It seems you are okay with using vernacular language, rather than discoursing in strict and rigid legal language where appropriate. I appreciate your concerns about ironic use of quotes, but it has little relevance to this discussion pursuant to your Rfc. The author's use of ironic quotes does not invalidate it as a reliable source per WP policy. Anastrophe (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I am using "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" because that is the name of the article and that is the short form used by all concerned parties, whereas not all concerned parties see the AWB features as "cosmetic." Lightbreather (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Capitalismojo: Continuing to look at your sources, one at a time. #3 The Daily Beast article by Megan McArdle titled "Just Say No to Dumb Gun Laws." McArdle said that "long guns aren't used in the majority of gun crimes, and 'assault weapon' is a largely cosmetic rather than functional description." She did not say that assault weapons' features - some or all - are cosmetic. And again, modifiers like "largely," "mainly," "mostly," and "primarily" have meaning; you can't just ignore them. Lightbreather (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Capitalismojo: Continuing to look at your sources, one at a time. #4 Jordy Yager's piece for The Hill, "The problem with 'assault weapons'" - Yager wrote "Gun companies quickly realized they could stay within the law and continue to make rifles with high-capacity magazine clips if they steered away from the cosmetic features mentioned in the law." If you unpack this statement, it is clear that only some of the features of assault weapons might be called "cosmetic." (Though let's reiterate that the word "cosmetic" appears no-where in the law. It only started to be used in discussions about the law re: some features.) Lightbreather (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Capitalismojo: And finally, looking at your five sources, one at a time. #5 Michael A. Memoli's story in the Los Angeles Times, "Assault weapons ban to be dropped from Senate gun bill'" - Memoli wrote "Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who opposes stricter gun control, said he was not surprised Reid would drop the assault weapons ban, saying it was 'primarily focused on cosmetics, not on function.'" Again, modifiers like "primarily" cannot be ignored. Lightbreather (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

So to sum up, all of my refs use "cosmetic", all are reliable sourced, and you think the qualifying terms "mainly" or "primarily" are important and should be used in front of "cosmetic"? Capitalismojo (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

No, Capitalismojo. I am trying to discuss cited sources and focus on detailed content, per the Misplaced Pages community dispute-resolution guidelines. I would appreciate others doing the same. Lightbreather (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Going a little deeper, actually none of Lightbreather's analyses have any probative value to the actual Rfc above. The Rfc above asks, only, "Is inclusion of the word "cosmetic" in the Criteria section appropriate". It does not ask "Is inclusion of the word "cosmetic" without any qualifiers, appropriate to the criteria section", which is a wholley different question. A vote has been tendered on the actual Rfc question, and seems to support that use of the word "cosmetic" is appropriate. If user Lightbreather wishes to create a new Rfc specific to the user's apparent actual issue with the wording, I would not be opposed to modifying it to "largely cosmetic", even though a strict reading of the section in question shows that is it already qualified: " because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:" Anastrophe (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

To reiterate, my question is whether or not the qualifier "cosmetic" ought to be in the Criteria section of the article at all. It appears nowhere in the law, it is used inconsistently by the sources - some to modify "features," others to describe the law itself - and which specific features are deemed purely or primarily "cosmetic" are never fully and consistently identified. (As I've posted elsewhere in this talk, the VPC says that, 1. the ability to accept a high-capacity ammunition magazine; 2. a rear pistol or thumb-hole grip; and 3. a forward grip or barrel shroud, are "significant assault weapon functional design features," but that, 4. bayonet mounts; 5. grenade launchers; 6. silencers; and 7. flash suppressors, are "bells and whistles" - arguably, mostly cosmetic.)

Despite these inconsistencies, the term "cosmetic features" appears not once, not twice, but three times in the Criteria section. Lightbreather (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A barrel shroud is the most purely cosmetic feature of all and saying otherwise points to a copious lack of knowledge about the subject. Forward grips were never banned on rifles or shotguns and their use on a handgun makes them an NFA item, so the VPC proves their lack of knowledge by parroting that gibberish.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Mike, would you please strike out your personal comment about me? Lightbreather (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Its not personal, the VPC/HCI/Obama For America Camps pump out gibberish. Repeating them points to a lack of knowledge about how firearms operate.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

To finalize my argument here for why the features in the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 should not be lumped together as "cosmetic"

There were 15 features included in the AWB 1994 definition of an assault weapon:

1. Semi-automatic (rifle, pistol, or shotgun)
2. Ability to accept detachable magazines (on a rifle or pistol)
3. Folding or telescoping stock (on a rifle or shotgun)
4. Pistol grip (on a rifle or shotgun)
5. Bayonet mount (on a rifle)
6. Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one (on a rifle)
7. Grenade launcher (on a rifle)
8. Ammunition magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip (on a pistol)
9. Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor (on a pistol)
10. Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold (on a pistol)
11. Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more (on a pistol)
12. A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm (on a pistol)
13. Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds (on a shotgun)
14. Detachable magazine (on a shotgun).

Per the Violence Policy Center publication Bullet Hoses, the three "most significant assault weapon functional design features" (in addition to the primary one, being semi-automatic) are:

• Ability to accept a high-capacity ammunition magazine
• Rear pistol or thumb-hole grip
• Forward grip or barrel shroud.

Also per the VPC, there are four "bells and whistles" features (or "cosmetic") that "have nothing to do with why assault weapons are so deadly." They are:

• Bayonet mount
• Grenade launcher
• Silencer
• Flash suppressor.

Therefore, of the 15 features included in AWB 1994, three were explicitly deemed significant, four were deemed cosmetic, and the rest are open to debate.

At this point, the vote is one for taking "cosmetic" out of the Criteria section, four for keeping it in, and one neutral. The discussion - over what, 24 hours? - has included three voices. That is hardly exhaustive. We are all in agreement that the features are features. I propose that the word "cosmetic" be removed from the "Criteria of an assault weapon" section, and added to a section about debate surrounding the ban. If that is not agreeable, I will escalate the issue to the next level. Lightbreather (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing 'cosmetic' is not agreeable. I've already demonstrated that your stated concerns about the wording are not specific to the Rfc you tendered. The use of the word is already qualified in the 'Criteria' section, which addresses your secondary concern expressed. Interestingly, you accept and reference at face value the VPC's interpretation (a biased source, in your own words) of what the features are that are in question.

Excuse me, Anastrophe where did I say that VPC is a biased source? Also, you claim that it's a reliable source for using the term "cosmetic features." Are you saying it's reliable to support your claim, but not mine? Lightbreather (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

"Again, the VPC is not a neutral party," you wrote earlier. Non-neutral = biased. It isn't necessarily pejorative, I should add. Anastrophe (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

"Are you saying it's reliable to support your claim, but not mine?". It is supportive of the use of the word cosmetic, and because the organization is at the polar extreme opposite of the NRA, who also describe the features as cosmetic, it is supportive that both sides of the discussion agree that the features are cosmetic - which tends to neutralize suggestions that only a specific bias supports the claim. Anastrophe (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You acknowledge however, that some of the features are "cosmetic". As well, as carefully noted in the "criteria" section, it is the presence or absence of two or more of the listed features that the law used as the definition of a bannable weapon. Manufacturers complied with the law, and removed specific cosmetic features in order to come within compliance of the law. Absent cosmetic features being part of the definition, manufacturers could not come within compliance.

I acknowledge that some sources describe some features as "cosmetic," but that is not the same as saying that I believe they are cosmetic.Lightbreather (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not interested in what you do or don't believe. The content of Misplaced Pages is not a platform for personal beliefs. Many reliable sources have been provided that describe some/all of the features banned as 'cosmetic'. The article qualifies the use of 'cosmetic' in all three places, so the argument that 'cosmetic' is inappropriately used, holds no water. You have one source that has both acknowledged that changing cosmetic features brought certain firearms into compliance with the law, and which also claims that some of the features are functional. Unfortunately, we cannot rely on a single biased source to further your interest in scrubbing the word 'cosmetic' from the article. The preponderance of sources support the wording in the article. One editor does not have the power via any policy to simply ignore more than sixteen reliable sources that support the wording, and by fiat scrub a word they don't like. Sorry. Anastrophe (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

16 was what I came up with in a few minutes. The actual search yielded over 16000!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Raw google (or other search engine) counts are not considered probative, however. There's far too much noise that gets scooped up even with the best filtering of the results. Anastrophe (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it seems like you're saying that you don't like the cited sources, which corroborate the already qualified wording in the section, so if you don't get your way even after a vote, you'll "escalate" the issue. Is that really necessary? I'm fine with the existing Rfc sitting for a week or so for more voices to chime in - although, again - your analyses argue that it is unqualified use of the term that is inappropriate, not the mere existence of the word. I would suggest you create an Rfc that goes specifically to your concerns. No information you have tendered thus far argues that the word alone requires removal, per the sources.

Also, you have mischaracterized the vote, it's worth noting. There are five votes (at the time of this writing), five different editors who support use of the word. one neutral, one opposed. Le's either get an Rfc that is probative to your specific concerns, or wait a week or so for more votes to come in. Anastrophe (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Please apologize for that, Anastrophe. Unless you're seeing something that I am not seeing

there were six votes as of just a few minutes ago. One (myself, Lightbreather) who supports the notion that the word "cosmetic" should not be in the Criteria section. Four (yourself, plus Mike, Jackmcbarn, and Capitalismojo) who oppose the notion, and one unidentified neutral party. That adds up to six. Lightbreather (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I misread, sorry. It would be nice if you were responsive to some of the many other issues I've brought up. Thus far, you've entirely ignored everything I've written. Are you interested in good faith discussion? Anastrophe (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

By my count, Anastrophe, I had replied to you at least three times as of when you posted you're remark that I had "entirely ignored everything written." Capitalismojo posted five sources all at once, and it took some time to read and reply to those. I've read everyone's comments up to this point - though not all the references - and I'm sorry, again, if my replies aren't fast enough for you. I will not be responding to Mike Searson, because it is obvious from his language that he's not interested in a civil discussion. I will have no discussions with anyone who talks like that. Lightbreather (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, I removed mine, you should remove yours.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, since you are the editor who started the Rfc, while you may be under no policy-driven obligation to discuss his concerns, I believe you have an ethical obligation to address any he brought up, inappropriate tone or not. You needn't reply in kind, you simply state your counter arguments. However, whether you take the ethical path or not is of course your choice alone. Anastrophe (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That joke of a list that you posted is not a list of the 15 features of the so-called assault weapon ban. In fact it just shows how people pushing an agenda twist things to suit their argument. There are 5 features for rifles: a folding or telescoping stock,pistol grip,bayonet mount,flash suppressor,grenade launcher and any 2 of these features were required to transform a harmless rifle into a so-called assault weapon. So if these features are not cosmetic, it sounds as if someone would much rather be shot with a bull barrel AR15 without a bayonet lug, flash suppressor or collapsible stock than one with these features. Lets look at pistols: How does having a magazine outside the pistol grip make a pistol more effective or deadly? The Broomhandle Mauser was set up like that and has not been used since the First World War in any military capacity. It has not really caught on as a design trend, either. Or a threaded barrel to attach a barrel extender (whatever the fuck that is), flash suppressor, hand grip (although I will grant that anyone who attaches a hand grip via a threaded barrel should be sentenced to death for being too stupid to live) or a silencer. Most of those devices are completely useless on handguns with the exception of a silencer. A silencer is a safety device to protect the shooter's hearing much like a muffler on an automobile. Because for some reason it makes anti gunners need to wear big people diapers they are heavily regulated in the US and to possess one unlawfully guarantees 10 years in Federal Pound Me in the Ass prison...so who exactly were they targeting with this law by going after scary looking threaded barrels? Then there's the barrel shroud, or as carolyn mccarthy famously and incorrectly referred to it as "a shoulder thing that goes up"...In almost 3 decades of shooting and being in the firearms industry as well as the military...I have never seen a single person hold a handgun by a barrel shroud to fire a round...so would barrel shrouds that cannot be used as hand holds be ok? An unloaded weight of 50 oz? How does a heavier pistol make it more effective when the trend has been to make them lighter since the 1970s? A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm? So if it looks like a real machine gun we should ban it, even though it does not operate like one? How exactly are you defining cosmetic?

Let's move on to shotguns. A semiautomatic shotgun with two or more of the following: A Folding or telescoping stock....at the time there were 2 shotguns like that in the world, neither of which had ever been used in a crime to that point. A pistol grip...which is a rarity on semiauto shotguns and if it makes them so effective, why have so many been made without them? A fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds...Because a 6-round shotgun is more dangerous than a 5-round Fudd gun? Detachable magazine, not very effective on shotguns to begin with, but these are people who think Tec-9s with a 12-round magazine are more dangerous than a Ruger P89 with a 10 round magazine.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Mike, would you please remove that last, personal remark? Lightbreather (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Done.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's a few sources that say that the features were cosmetic:

1. Rossi, Peter Henry (1 February 2008). Armed and Considered Dangerous. Transaction Publishers. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-202-36242-7. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
2. Wilson, Harry L. (2007). Guns, Gun Control, and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-7425-5348-4. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
3. Doherty, Brian (2008). Gun Control on Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle Over the Second Amendment. Cato Institute. p. 51. ISBN 978-1-933995-25-0. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
4. Shally-Jensen, Michael (31 December 2010). Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Social Issues. ABC-CLIO. p. 509. ISBN 978-0-313-39205-4. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
5. Patrick, Brian Anse (2010). Rise of the Anti-media: In-forming America's Concealed Weapon Carry Movement. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-7391-1886-3. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
6. Beck, Glenn; Balfe, Kevin (22 September 2009). Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government. Threshold Editions. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-4391-6683-3. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
7. United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary (1994). Assault weapons: a view from the front lines : hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, on S. 639 ... and S. 653 ... August 3, 1993. U.S. G.P.O. pp. 185–186. ISBN 978-0-16-046100-2. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
8. Carter, Gregg Lee (1 January 2006). Gun Control in the United States: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. pp. 75–76. ISBN 978-1-85109-760-9. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
9. Krouse, William J. (2012). Gun Control Legislation. DIANE Publishing. pp. 43–44. ISBN 978-1-4379-4125-8. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
10. Chu, Vivian S. (August 2010). Gun Trafficking and the Southwest Border. DIANE Publishing. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-4379-2914-0. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
11. Allen, George (January 2006). George Allen: A Senator Speaks Out on Liberty, Opportunity, and Security. Xulon Press. pp. 104–105. ISBN 978-0-9769668-1-4. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
12. Spitzer, Robert J. (4 May 2012). "Assault Weapons". In Gregg Lee Carter Ph.D. (ed.). Guns in American Society. ABC-CLIO. pp. 148–149. ISBN 978-0-313-38671-8. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
13. Feldman, Richard (16 May 2011). Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist. John Wiley & Sons. p. 137. ISBN 978-1-118-13100-8. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
14. Westwood, David (1 January 2005). Rifles: An Illustrated History of Their Impact. ABC-CLIO. p. 122. ISBN 978-1-85109-401-1. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
15. Brown, Peter Harry; Abel, Daniel G. (15 June 2010). Outgunned: Up Against the NRA-- The First Complete Insider Account of the Battle Over Gun Control. Free Press. p. 92. ISBN 978-1-4516-0353-8. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
16. Bunch, Will (31 August 2010). The Backlash: Right-Wing Radicals, High-Def Hucksters, and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama. HarperCollins. p. 100. ISBN 978-0-06-200875-6. Retrieved 10 August 2013.

That's from multiple points of view as well.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

As Anastrophe said on August 12: "Raw google (or other search engine) counts are not considered probative, however. There's far too much noise that gets scooped up even with the best filtering of the results." I couldn't say it better here myself. Lightbreather (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Those were not from a raw search and there is no "noise" in any of what I posted. Each one is from a reliable source and I'll take the Pepsi challenge with them against any nonsense from wikileaks. I apologize if the truth hurts.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe said, " ... I would be agreeable to modifying the 'Criteria' section to say "largely cosmetic", rather than "cosmetic" full stop...". Anastrophe (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather's reply: I can agree to your proposed revision, Anastrophe, provided...

1. For WP:INTEGRITY: Since the first use of “cosmetic” in the section appears in the middle of the first sentence, it should be moved to the end (immediately preceding the cited sources).

2. Also, since what fully automatic firearms do is discussed elsewhere in the article/section, and since the article is about semi-automatic firearms and not just about rifles, the clause “of an assault rifle that is fully automatic” should be removed from that sentence.

3. For WP:REPEATLINKS: Since links to assault weapon and semi-automatic firearm already appear in the lead, and since both of those links already link to firearms, they should be removed from the sentence, too.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I can agree with removing some of the overlinked terms. I do not agree with removing the mention of full auto, nor do I agree to whitewashing or downplaying the term "cosmetic" nor with using any adverbs to describe the term.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am provisionally agreeable to point one, depending on how you intend to reword it. I am not in agreement with point two, as the information is directly and materially relevant to the cited sources and an understanding of why the term 'cosmetic' is used in the first place. I have no opinion on point three. That said, since it has been established that all three mentions of 'cosmetic' and their supporting sources already qualify the use of the term, I don't see any value now to qualifying an already qualified use of the term, which would be redundant. Anastrophe (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Since #3 (removing the repeated links) is unchallenged I am going to do that, and then return to discuss the other items. Lightbreather (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am beginning to have a problem here. You did not simply remove links, you re-worded some of the material, whitewashing the language used. That is inappropriate. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have learned my lesson about not making too many edits at once. When I removed the WP:REPEATLINKS, I only removed the repeated links. About the same time, I edited for WP:EDITORIALIZING by removing "only a small," "actually," and "mere." Could you give me a link to what I whitewashed? Also, could you have worded your comment WP:NICE? I am relatively new to WP editing, and I wish everyone would take a breath and believe me when I say again that I am trying to edit in good faith. Please, everybody! Lightbreather (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The changes you made were supported by sources, and you did not discuss them here. Please change them back. Thank you. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sue, the WP:REPEATLINKS that I removed were discussed on August 19 and 20. As for removing the WP:EDITORIALIZING, the sentence that starts with "Actually possessing" doesn't include a citation. Ditto for the sentences that begin "The mere possession" and say "only a small part." Please help me identify which of the cited sources support editors of this page using what what Misplaced Pages calls WP:WEASEL words. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done I returned the language back to the way it was. Since you say you are a new editor, I will try to be of assistance. The best policy is to not make *any* edit that you think will be controversial in any way. If you think there may be resistance of any kind, it should be discussed first. This is particularly true if you find yourself to be the sole voice of a particular position, as you find yourself here. For example, if I know I have a bias on any particular subject, I avoid editing those pages at all, and if I must, I make sure all edits are backed by consensus. I strongly advise you to do the same, lest somebody eventually complain to the powers that be. This is friendly advice, from someone who has spent her fair share of time on AN/I. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Sue. I am trying to be WP:BOLD on WP:WORDS, and WP:CAREFUL on things that are less clear to me. Also, what is AN/I? Lightbreather (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Wp:ani. Sort of like having to go to the principal's office.  :-) North8000 (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

Another user removed part of a sentence in the Expiration and effect on crime section of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban article. The user wrote, "The 'note' was part of a summary not prepared by the research team, which makes no comparable study within the body of the study."

However, the summary and it's note were added by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention itself and, as an official U.S. government agency and the publisher of First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws, the CDC's summary is germane.

Furthermore, the penultimate paragraph in the Methods section of the report (PDF version referenced above and online version) refers to the following footnote:

At the June 2002 meeting of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, new terminology was adopted to reflect the findings of the Task Force. Instead of being referred to as "strongly recommended" and "recommended," such interventions are now referred to as "recommended (strong evidence of effectiveness)" and "recommended (sufficient evidence of effectiveness)," respectively. Similarly, the finding previously referred to as "insufficient evidence" is now more fully stated: "insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness." These changes were made to improve the clarity and the intent of the findings.

And in fact, those terms do appear in the body of the report, as the footnote indicate. Lightbreather (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This entire addition is original research from primary sources and as such should not be included. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What Capitalismojo said. GregJackP Boomer! 20:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, could you please specify what you mean by "this entire addition"? Lightbreather (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What I meant is that wikipedia has three core policies. One is "No Original Research". WP:NOR This policy directs editor to avoid primary sources. A report by a federal task force directed by (and published by) the CDC is a primary source document. This material could remain if a ref from a reliable secondary source were available, as it stands policy would constrain this material's use. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. "Original research" on Misplaced Pages means the WP editor's own research or analysis, it doesn't mean a primary source. WP:NOR says, "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." WP:WPNOTRS says, "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." Thus it's generally acceptable to include primary sources, as long as the WP editor does not draw their own conclusions from it. Notes added by the publisher of a study are part of a published work, and therefore they are part of the primary source — they're not original research. — Mudwater 10:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear from the wording at WP:WPNOTRS that primary sources are not "generally acceptable" - that's precisely what they mean when they qualify with "difficult to use appropriately", "use with caution", and '"secondary sources are preferred". They may be acceptable in limited circumstances, but generally they are not. They are generally to be avoided, based on a strict reading. Anastrophe (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't normally believe in topic bans, but in someone's case I'm willing to make an exception.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

While the CDC may havee been in effect the publisher of the study, the authors were in fact experts specifically chosen to represent points of view from many sources including the National Institute of Health, the U.S. Justice Department and Columbia University. The CDC's role then was NOT as the author of the report but rather in the nature of that of a publisher. The fact that the publisher of a work happens to disagree with or wishes to diminish the significance of the findings of an independent commission's work is interesting but it is nothing more than commentary about the findings made. Just as we do not include the viewpoint of Random House with regard to the contents of a book it publishes, so we should not include what amounts to editorializing by the publisher. The comment should remain omitted.QuintBy (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I added a statement from the body of the Task Force report, since there is not agreement about the notes that were published with the reports. Lightbreather (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI There are issues with CDC gun research. Here is a Forbes piece in February year about CDC gun research. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The specific citation at the center of this discussion has been taken care of, but the source URL at the center of this discussion links to an HTML page. There is a disclaimer at the bottom of that page that says:

"All MMWR HTML versions of articles are electronic conversions from ASCII text into HTML. This conversion may have resulted in character translation or format errors in the HTML version. Users should not rely on this HTML document, but are referred to the electronic PDF version and/or the original MMWR paper copy for the official text, figures, and tables."

Therefore, I am replacing the links (more than one) in the article to the recommended PDF file.

FWIW, when you go read that PDF a box on the bottom of page two says:

"Points of view expressed in these reports are those of the preparers and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Justice, or the U.S. Department of Justice."

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Use of wikileaks as a source in lede

The recently added info in the lede pertaining to constitutional challenges to the AWB uses wikileaks as the source. wikileaks is generally not considered a reliable source. I'd recommend finding a reliable source for the report, otherwise it should be struck from the lede. Ancillarily, info in the lede should be expanded upon within the body of the article, but there are no details about the challenges in the article. Please add specifics regarding these challenges, using reliable sources. Absent both a reliable source and further details in the body, it's not ready for inclusion in the lede. Anastrophe (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I added another citation that supports the previous citation. There is no public access to the reports cited via Congressional Research Service, but the WikiLeaks website has an exact copy of CRS-RL32077. In addition, the Federation of American Scientists website has an exact copy (NOT A TRANSCRIPTION) of CRS-R42957, in which author Victoria S. Chu, Legislative Attorney, acknowledges, "T.J. Halstead was the initial author of RL32077, “The Assault Weapons Ban: Legal Challenges and Legislative Issues." In both cases, the URL provided gives the reader a web page to access the source, since the CRS does not. However, neither citation claims that the authors or publishers of the original reports was WikiLeaks or the FAS. If you have a better way to format the citation, I'm open to suggestions. Lightbreather (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Since you now have reliable source for the claim in the lede, you should remove the wikileaks citation. Do you intend to expand on these details in the article? They should be covered as they are relevant to the article. Noting them only in the lede is not desireable however. Anastrophe (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

For reference, the citation we're discussing - the one removed - is at url=http://wikileaks.org/CRS-RL32077. You're first argument was that Wilkileaks is "generally not considered a reliable source." However, per the Wikileaks discussion in the article you cited, it may be. Further, External links/perennial websites says, "this page does not prescribe any recommendations of what action to take if one encounters any of these sites linked within articles. This list is only an aid to ongoing discussion surrounding the use of these sites, final consensus is yet to be determined." Finally, per WP:CITELEAD, "complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations." This particular citation is less about WS:SOURCE and more about WP:SOURCEACCESS. Therefore, I am restoring the citation. If someone has evidence that this particular citation is not WP:VERIFY, I have not seen it. If a better link for readers to see a duplicate of Congressional Research Service Report RL32077 is available, I haven't found it. Lightbreather (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikileaks documents have no provenance. None. There is no mechanism to verify that a document on wikileaks is what it claims to be. We are free to believe that a document on wikileaks is genuine, but it requires an assumption of verifiability which does not exist. I believe the document in question is genuine. You do too, apparently. But that doesn't change the material facts. It's not a reliable source under any objective criteria, because there is no mechanism to verify whether it's real or not. The onus is upon the editor who wants the information included to prove verifiability; the onus is not on other editors to prove that it is not. I can't think of any good reason to use an unreliable, unverified source in the article, not to mention the lede. Find a reliable source, or remove the citation. Anastrophe (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Spot on. By definition, "leaked information" cannot be considered reliable, since it has no true "source," it is simply a rumor. Find that information somewhere reliable.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I would like to create a "Legal challenges" (or similar) section in the article to expand upon this info, but as I've stated previously, I only have so much time to work on this article, and this isn't the only item being discussed at this time. Anyone who is truly able to edit from a truly WP:NPOV is welcome to help. Lightbreather (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

" Anyone who is truly able to edit from a truly WP:NPOV is welcome to help." This is a fairly offensive bit of rhetoric. If you were assuming good faith of your fellow editors, there'd be no need for the sentence at all. Anastrophe (talk)

I apologize. Couldn't you just have asked for an apology, instead of assuming not good faith? Lightbreather (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of the above looks to me like wiki-lawyering. If you have a pdf of a CRS report, complete with all of it's numbering, authors, publication data etc., to try to exclude it based on where you got the pdf from is not plausible. North8000 (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Why would a relatively uncontroversial congressional report only be available on Wikileaks? Congressional reports are part of the public record, are they not? I suppose it may have been supressed on political grounds, but I don't find that terribly plausible. I repeat: it looks genuine me too; however, wikileaks is a problematic source on a number of levels, and the general feeling seems to be that it's appropriate only for matters that reference wikileaks in and of itself. Perhaps it would be worth contacting one or more of the listed authors of the report to see if they have any insight. Anastrophe (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Most likely because it would take hours to find another place to get it.North8000 (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Convenience, or lack of same, really isn't much of an argument in favor of using unreliable sources. Anastrophe (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

How about this from the Misplaced Pages article on the CRS: "CRS reports are widely regarded as in depth, accurate, objective, and timely, but as a matter of policy they are not made available to members of the public by CRS, except in certain circumstances." Lightbreather (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This quote (partial) is from the Peer Editing Help archive:

Again, it can be used to basically source quotes, but not to source the meaning of those quotes. That is, if some document is reproduced at Wikileaks, you can only use the document to verify what the document says, but not to analyze what it means, and even that is tough, because to say that any particular document released on Wikileaks is significant or "proves" something, you'd need a secondary source (like a newspaper or magazine or something) which says that it means that. Otherwise, there's not much to do with it, since analyzing a primary source (like a government memorandum) would be original research, which is not what we do at Misplaced Pages. We wait for others to analyze primary sources and report what they find, then we aggregate and report those findingins in our own words. That's basically what Misplaced Pages does: find stuff other people have already figured out and re-report it here. If no one figured something out before Misplaced Pages did, Misplaced Pages shouldn't be the first to report it, including the importance and meaning of government memoranda leaked through Wikileaks. --Jayron32 03:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Lightbreather (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

A lot seems mixed up there. First it seems to be (incorrectly) implying that documents from Wikileaks are mostly or all primary sources. And then it seems to build other things upon that incorrect premise. Also it seem to be discussing unusual types of uses rather than the most common one, which is as a source and cite for information put into Misplaced Pages. North8000 (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree there is a mix of info in that peer forum reply, but for this discussion the main question is: Can you use a Wikileaks document (in this case, a PDF copy of a CSR report) to verify what the document says? This CSR report (RL32077, author T.J. Halstead) is later cited in another CSR report (R42957, author Vivian S. Chu) that is available online at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42957.pdf‎. However, the only online link to Halstead's report is via Wikilinks.

I'll be happy to just cite the paper report itself, if someone could direct me on how to do that. (One can ask their Senator or U.S. Rep for a copy, if they're suspicious of the Wikileaks PDF file.) Lightbreather (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Request input/feedback please on 3+ articles that discuss assault weapons and federal assault weapons bans

At least three Misplaced Pages articles discuss assault weapons and federal assault weapons bans beyond a concise sentence or two:

1. The The Federal Assault Weapons Ban article page. (It confusingly starts with "The now defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)..." – and then, in the first section, Criteria of an assault weapon, says, "This page refers to the usage in the United States under the previous and proposed assault weapon bans.")

2. The assault weapons page, and its sections headed United States Federal Assault Weapons Ban and Proposed 2013 federal ban - and others.

3. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act page section headed Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

I am posting a notice about those request on the assault weapons and Violent Crime Control talk pages, and would like to post on on some WP style pages too, if anyone has suggestions. Assuming these are all acceptable types of WP:CONTENTFORKING, I can't make out which is what kind

Thanks.

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What are you proposing, specifically? Or, if you don't have a proposal, what's the question? — Mudwater 01:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not proposing anything particularly. I'm trying to understand the existing hierarchy, and whether or not there's ever been any effort among page editors (article or project) to agree to one. As an editor, it would save me a lot of time and grief. Misplaced Pages readers would benefit in navigation and understanding. Lightbreather (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think some of them are probably acceptable under WP:SUMMARY, However, I would think the bulk of detail about this particular legislation should go into one of the articles, with the the other two having hattips and brief summaries. However, as this was not the only legislation to define assault weapons, it should not be a full merge. Here is an arrangement I could see

• Assault Weapons - discussino of the weapons themselves, with a brief section pointing to the AWB article
• VCCLEA - Full details of this particular law, including details of this assault weapon ban
• Replace the existing "Federal AWB" page with a "AW legilation" page, one section of which will summarize and point to the VCCLEA article, but other sections which could cover other legilatoin. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

At first glance, it seems like a logical scheme. BTW: Are discussions on requests supposed to be real-time, like a chat? (I'm making dinner, and hubby wants me to call it a day on the computer...  :-) Lightbreather (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussions can be real time, or delayed by multiple days. Just depends on how active editors are. Discussions usually don't close for several days unless there is a landslide of answers in one way. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything except replacing the "Federal AWB" page. It was an actual statute that expired on its own terms, and is notable enough to merit its own article. I agree on creating a page on "AW legislation" as a fork from the other article. It should cover proposed or failed AW legislation, with a summary and a "main article" link to "Federal AWB." GregJackP Boomer! 04:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Federal AWB and the VCCLEA are the same law. The AWB was just one part of the VCCLEA, so under my proposal, it would still have an article dedicated to that law. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The content fork that should be avoided is to have one article about assault weapons and another article about laws that prohibit or restrict assault weapons. That's because assault weapons do not exist independent of the laws. That is, assault weapons are defined -- arbitrarily, some would say -- by the laws that prohibit or restrict them, and indeed they are defined differently by different laws. That's why the assault weapon article talks about the laws so much, as it should, as well as about the debate surrounding the legal issue. Meanwhile, Federal Assault Weapons Ban and Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act are each notable themselves and so should remain separate articles, preferably without a lot of redundant content. And then there's Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, another notable assault weapon law, which should also remain separate. — Mudwater 11:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, Mudwater. First, there's the Assault_weapon_(disambiguation) page itself, which explains that assault weapon is also a military term. And if you go to The Defense Technical Information Center page and search for "assault weapon" you will find hundreds of military documents that use the term. Lightbreather (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what Lightbreather is asking for. IMO there certainly needs to be an "Assault weapon" article. It is an immensely used, wp:notable term, and the subject of a large amount of confusion and obfuscation. And so an article not only meets wp criteria for a separate article many times over, but it is an immensely useful article. And the definitions in various legislation are core material for the article, since the term is a legal/political one, not an actual type of firearm in it's own right. (First half of edit by North8000, subsequently split by insertion of other post(s)

As I said yesterday (8/21/13), I'm trying to understand the existing hierarchy. It would help me as an editor, and it would help anyone as a reader. Has there ever been any effort among editors (article or project) to agree to one? Lightbreather (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A heirarchy does not necessarily exist, nor does one have to. What will be accomplished by generating one, and editors agreeing to one? What improvements to the articles are you looking to accomplish? Anastrophe (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And certainly major pieces of federal legislation need to be covered in Misplaced Pages, independent of the "assault weapon" terminology. In most cases, "assault weapon" is only in the sales name or shorthand name (not the actual title) of these legislation's, further weakening the link with the term. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

None of the three articles you list are content forks. As the content fork page clearly says in the first sentence, "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject." Articles, not sections of articles. Only one of six sections in the VCCLEA article is about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Only one section of many sections in the "Assault Weapons" article pertains to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Both of those articles helpfully direct readers here for a fuller explanation of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, in their relevant sections. Just because inter-related topics are discussed amongst multiple articles doesn't make them content forks. There is no formal or informal "heirarchy" involved - similar topics don't necessarily or implicitly have to be subordinate to one or another. Anastrophe (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. Since there's been some confusion over why I posted this, I read the guidelines in more depth. I have a specific question: Is it the consensus of the editors participating in this talk that when it comes to the term "assault weapon," that the primary topic is assault weapon as a legal or political term? In other words, is it the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? (Since that's the context in which the layperson/reader has heard it, I'd say yes.) Lightbreather (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Political term, basically misidentifying a semi-automatic rifle. A true assault weapon is capable of fully automatic fire and is a military weapon (although under the NFA, civilians who go through a detailed background check and obtain a tax stamp). A true assault weapon fires a reduced size rifle round (5.56mm v. 7.62x51mm or 7.62x39mm v. 7.62x54mm) and derives its name from the German Sturmgewehr 44 (7.92x33mm v. 7.92x57mm). It was designed as a cross between a full caliber battle rifle / light machine gun and the pistol cartridge firing submachine gun. If needed, I can pull sources, but a GBooks search would pull plenty (or JSTOR, Hein, EBSCO, etc). GregJackP Boomer! 01:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(Added later) Agree in spirit, but not in your choice of term ("assault weapon")North8000 (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

GregJackP, is your response to my question? The question is: Regarding the term "assault weapon," is its use legally and politically the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Lightbreather (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You asked, immediately above, whether it was "a legal or political term", rather than as just now, "legally and politically". I can't speak for the user, but I believe he thought your question was whether it was one or the other, not both. Anastrophe (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not mean to ask if the term is legal or political. The hatnote (I learned a new WP term!) of the current version of the assault weapons page says, This article is about the American legal and political term. The current Assault weapons (disambiguation) page says, "Assault weapons are military weapons or weapons systems." The presence of the Assault Weapons (disambiguation) page implies that the Assault weapons (as a legal and political term) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Since I can find no history of discussion on this distinction, I am simply asking if that is the consensus of the editors involved in this talk. I reworded the question in my response to GregJackP to try to make its meaning more clear. Lightbreather (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I answered your initial question, which used "or", a disjunctive connector. If it is one or the other, it is a political term, not a legal term. If you are asking if it is both, it depends on the jurisdiction. In California an AR15 (semi-auto) is legally defined as an assault weapon. In Texas there is no such legal definition. GregJackP Boomer! 02:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the implication you suggest. It disambigs to both the technical term WRT firearms, and also links to the politic/legal meaning. What's the problem you see that needs fixing? Anastrophe (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, your question has once again changed mid-stream. This section was started with the inquiry as to whether content forking was taking place (it is not). Now your question has changed to - I think, since it's still not entirely clear what destination you wish to arrive at - about whether the term 'assault weapon' is the primary topic (of this article alone? or of all three?) Regardless, 'assault weapon is the topic of the assault weapon article, the FAWB article is about the Federal assault weapon ban, and the VCCLEA article is about the VCCLEA. There isn't a 'primary topic' overriding all three, so no - none are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Anastrophe (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I posted a specific question because there seems to be confusion about what I am trying to discuss. Is there some WP guideline that says a discussion topic has to be started with a simple yes/no question? Assuming there isn't, is there a guideline that says if questions arise during a discussion, that the discussion is moot, should be closed, and a new discussion should be started on the new questions? I am asking this seriously because I am not an expert editor, and if there are guidelines like these, please point me to them so I can familiarize myself with them. Otherwise, these repeated comments about my actions feel like biting. Lightbreather (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"Is there some WP guideline that says a discussion topic has to be started with a simple yes/no question?" No, there isn't. " Assuming there isn't, is there a guideline that says if questions arise during a discussion, that the discussion is moot, should be closed, and a new discussion started on the new questions?" I have not suggested or implied that the discussion is 'moot', 'should be closed', or that a new discussion has to be be started. Please don't put words in my mouth. It makes it hard on other editors when a vague request is proposed in a new section, but then the question/request is changed to an unrelated request. The original request was unclearly stated - I'm by no means the only editor who has had trouble deducing exactly what you are looking for, as one can see by reading the comments. But the conversation did not gradually change to a discussion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, you switched to that abruptly. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONTENTFORK do not appear to me to be related guidelines, so in that regard, yes, a new section should probably have been started. I have provided responses to both of your inquiries. Are my answers satisfactory? If not, in what way are they inadequate? How can we improve this article? Anastrophe (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42 seemed to understand early on what I was trying to say, though I might not have expressed it like an expert WP editor. He helpfully pointed me to WP:SUMMARY so I could learn about that, and then he suggested one solution to possibly make this (and related) articles better. As for introducing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I only did that after you told me that what I'd referred to as WP:CONTENTFORKs were not content forks - but you didn't give me a helpful link (as Gaijin42 did), so I had to either give up on my concern/confusion or go searching for the WP correct way to express myself. That said, I'm going to move the discussion about primary forks to after your not-content-forks post. Lightbreather (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"but you didn't give me a helpful link" - correct, I did not - instead, I helpfully repeated the first sentence of the content fork article, and explained why your interpretation was incorrect. Different editors have different styles, as we're all individuals. Some editors are interested in teaching, guiding, shepherding, and tutoring new users. That's fine - they're welcome to do so, I applaud them, however editors are not required to do so. I'm interested in the article, and really don't care if an editor is new or expert. A thick skin is generally advised if one is to engage with their peers on WP, just like in real life. I will speak my mind as I wish within the constraints of WP policy, and that is exactly what I've done. We have a job to do as editors: improve the article within the bounds of consensus, reliable sources, and policy. I'm interested in doing that job. Bluntness is not a violation of WP:CIVIL. I'm still waiting to hear what the specific improvements to this article you have in mind in these question about WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If you are trying better to understand specific policies such as these, it would be much better to post your questions on their respective talk pages, don't you think? This talk page is for discussion about this article. As a new editor, unsure of policy and having already experienced what happens when you go against consensus, reliable sources, and policy, you may wish to spend more time observing the process, and weighing your future actions accordingly. Of course, you're not obligated to, and I'm only suggesting you do so if you wish to avoid unnecessary disputes. You chose, as your first article to edit boldy, one that falls within a highly polarizing category. That's fine. But if one chooses to dig into same in a collaborative enterprise, one shouldn't be surprised when their hands get dirty, and maybe suffer a few nicks and gouges. Anastrophe (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, for being new you have picked the absolutely most difficult way to start (like at the 99.9th percentile)......attempting a large amount of bold/undiscussed edits on an article which is on a contentious topic. And for the fraction of those edits that are POV related, the edits are mostly or all in one direction. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization - not WP:MOS - of federal assault weapons ban

The term “federal assault weapons ban” is not consistently capitalized in sources. In government documents, it is only regularly capitalized in titles. Ditto for the major newspapers: The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, San Jose Mercury News, (New York) Daily News, New York Post, Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times, Denver Post, Chicago Tribune, and Dallas Morning News (only in some headlines, depending on the individual paper’s style guide). Therefore, per MOS:CAPS and WP:SOFIXIT I will be correcting this in the Federal assault weapons ban page and related articles. --Lightbreather (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, please read WP:DISRUPT and WP:DISRUPT. Nobody is accusing you of any of these things yet. I certainly am not. But you need to understand that your edits and posts are coming dangerously close. If you are a new user to Misplaced Pages as you claim, I implore you to take things down a notch, observe how things are done, then jump in. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Firearms articles
• Unknown-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles
• B-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment